I'm still checking, but I know who I won't support.
Having said that, Wisconsin just had its state Democratic convention. Dean won by a landslide in a straw poll, getting more than 3 times the number of votes of the closest challenger (I think Kerry was second, with Edwards close behind).
Like many Democrats, I'm in a quandary: electable candidate versus one who represents the ideology I support. So at this point I'll equivocate and give you two answers: Kerry for electability and Dean for ideology (he gets my vote for this survey).
Today is June 18, 2003. The election will be November 2, 2004. Do you really think that anyone has enough information at this point to make a balanced judgment? Or that the Democrats will, for once, act as though they all realize that ONLY ONE person can get elected, and that one person already holds the office in question?
Sorry, I don't think this is an issue to be considered for fun. This is serious stuff. Personally, I'm for NO PRIMARIES, just one vote with a zillion candidates.
Anyone who has spent any time in New York (or listened to the news, for that matter) know what Al Sharpton is: A blustering blow hard who has as much credibility as Pee Wee Herman. Sharpton touts himself a defender of the defenseless but he's really a one trick pony. He'll impress me when he defends someone not of his racial background. He's about as un-diversified as the Aryan race.
I've heard good things about Dean but don't know much about him myself. I'm really disheartened because there is not one "standout" amongst the whole Democratic pack which leads me to believe we're sentenced to another 4 years of the Warrior Child Who Can't Add Subtract, Multiply or Divide Nor Make A Sentence.
I've heard that Gen. Wesley Clark is considering a run. I don't know enough about him but he supported Clinton's policies and both has far more military experience (to those for whom this is critically important) and is more articulate than the incumbent. Dean's positions look promising in comparison with his opponents. ... I'm with Holydiver and don't like Joseph Lieberman! Many of JL's stands make him look like a Republican in donkey's clothing and he trumpets his religiosity too much for my taste.
I voted, in the poll, for Sen. Kerry as I think he is the strongest one to take on Bush. Though I would not vote for anyone on this list or for Bush either. When are the American people going to realize that our 2 party system is a failure?! That the main goal of both the democrats and the republicans are to keep themselves in power! They do this by attempting to turn everything into a black and white issue. You are either on the left with the democrats or on the right with the republicans. There is no middle ground, and these two groups will fight to the death to keep it that way. As long as they convince the general population that the only way to make a difference is to vote for one of their canidates this will continue. Don't believe the hype that a vote for a third party canidate is a "throw-away vote". Only when enough of us wake up to what they are doing will we see real change in our government!!
Kerry's my guy. This time it's more than just "lesser of two evils".
I'm sure someone will rebut that with isolated parts of the guy's 20+ year record in the Senate, but I am politically literate enough to know that a "yes" or "no" vote on a bill doesn't tell the story. That is one reason legislators add amendments: so their opponents will vote in such a way as to seem they'd be irresponsible, unpatriotic, etc. You really have to study the reasons a person votes for or against a complicated bill to understand what their position is. Responsible voters will check, check, check.
I have to admit, I preferred Edwards in the primary, but I believe Kerry is very qualified as well.
I wish politics (or their advertising) wasn't always about taking things out of context to make the other side look a certain way, though. "They" all know how congress works, yet they will pick things out of context to try to make it look like someone is not telling the truth about what they say they believe.
I can't do it. I just can't do it. I cannot in good conscience vote for either Bush or Kerry. I have become so thoroughly disgusted with both parties. The fighting, the name calling, the slanderous statements from both parties. I don't believe in "the anyone but Bush" theory, but I am ready to believe in "the anyone but a democrat or republican" theory.
I will vote for a third party candidate. Not sure who yet, but I feel that it is the only way to register my dissatisfaction with our 2 major parties. Yes, some people will view it as a "throw-away vote" but I don't. Sure a third party will not win a Presidential election anytime soon, but it seems that with each election their presence grows stronger. At some point the Dems and the Repubs will have to take notice of them. And maybe then we will see some change take place. Until then, nothing will change. There is no incentive for the parties to change the way they do business.
I used to vote 3rd party, even 4th party and communist party here in Nyc. Then when Bush Inc. came along, I realized what a mistake it was. Yes, it is important to send a message to the polical XXXX's that you are dissatisfied with the system. However, that message will never even register with Republicans in power.
They love you. It is equivilent to you being a preacher in the deep south banning gay marriage and integration.
Vote in a relatively sane politician and then demand the changes.